|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.216.246.51
The Doctor steps in and says "And what is troubling you today, Sir?"Objectivist: "I'm just down - can't get enough sleep. I get every cold or flu that does around, and I seem to be losing interest in the things that I used to enjoy. Even my performance at work is suffering."
Doctor: "Well, that's simple. You have clinical depression!"
Objectivist: "Really?"
Doctor: "Yes, it's caused by a chemical imbalance in your brain, but don't worry, with the right antidepressant we can fix you right up. I am going to prescribe a well tolerated 'Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor', also known as a SSRI."
Objectivist: "WAIT A MINUTE! I've been here for only two minutes and somehow you have figured out I have a chemical imbalance, what chemicals are imbalanced, by how much, and what drug to prescribe to restore the balance???"
Doctor: "Well, what would I have to do to convince you of this?"
Objectivist: "Well, let's start with some blood work so you can show me some TEST RESULTS!"
Doctor: "On second thought, I'm just gonna give you a note for two weeks of stress leave..."
Cheers,
Presto
Follow Ups:
Shall I have the results delivered by an African swallow an an European swallow????
so the doctor could tell him: 'OK, so you're ugly, too!'
To which he promplty replied:"I'm sorry Sir, but I only cut hair!"
...since they were developed to test the effects of drugs in medicine and are valid for that purpose.Unlike audio DBTs where the listener's experience, training and test taking abilities all affect the results.
as
nt
(nt)
.
____________________________________________________________
"Nature loves to hide."
---Heraclitus of Ephesus (trans. Wheelwright)
what?? If I were that "objectivist," I would consider getting another doctor. To diagnose clinical depression on the basis of a few opening sentences borders on malpractice, in my opinion. There are a number of other illnesses, some very serious, that could lead to these symptoms, and I'll leave it to some of our medically-knowledgeable posters to list some if they want to bother. In fact, a blood test could very easily rule out some major contenders.When are people going to give up on this subjective-objective debate. As it is typically posed, it is silly. There is no question that laboratory measuring devices are far more sensitive and accurate than our hearing, but it is also the case that laboratory measurements cannot ultimately be of decisive help in picking audio equipment, especially high-quality equipment. For now, the ear-brain combination is vastly superior in judging the extremely complex, fine nuances that are involved in the quality reproduction of sound. We don't know what to measure, haven't learned what measurement are important and how to weight different parameters, and most important, different people perceive and judge (like) sound in different ways. Your great speaker may be my terrible one, though we are listening to exactly the same speaker. How will measurements ever account for that, unless each person is also calibrated. Just as a chemical analysis of a dish prepared by two different chefs is unlikely to reveal which one is the great chef and the other is the meerly good one, a laboratory analysis of the sound for a speaker is likely not to tell to you which speaker you will love and which you will only like a lot. It can probably tell you which one ones you won't like if you take the trouble to compare lots of measurements to the sounds of lots of speakers.
Measurements have their place and remain supreme in certain arenas. In the complex arena of the human senses and perception, measurements right now can only go so far. For evaluating audio equipment, measurements fall far short of giving enough information for critical audiophiles. [As an aside, though, I recently found some published distortion curves and detailed frequency response curves for a number of speakers. For the fun of it I decided to rank the speakers just on the basis of smoothness and flatness of the frequency response curves and level of the distortion without seeing the names of the speakers. I then compared these ranking with my previous listening ratings for the ones I had heard and was amazed to find a very good correlation. It wasn't one-to one by any means, but speakers with flat, smooth frequency responses and low distortion definitely tended to be ones that I liked a lot. They all would be considered high-quality speakers, and low raters by hearing that were in the $10-20K range also rated low according to the measurements. Still, I would never buy a speaker based on how it measures or even based on how someone else says it sounds. The measurements are still on the primitive side, and my tastes are my tastes.
On the subjectivist vs. objectivist debate. I think you nailed it! Keep up the good work.
Writing these things takes time. Most of the time I don't think anybody reads them, and often when they are read, people either get mad or couldn't care less. So why bother? I had decided to only post when I thought I had some specific information that would help someone, like tubes to try in a preamp, but I'm afraid I get carried away and can't resist responding when I think I can provide a different perspective or hopefully shed some light on a more philosophical issue. As a professor who has taught science for decades to undergraduates who only take the courses to meet a requirement and, coming in, find it all baffling, I have made great efforts to teach people how far clear, rational thinking can get you, how enlightening and powerful it can be. Of course, science works well in the scientific domain, and much better in some fields than others, but there are many other dimensions of human experience where it isn't of much use.I think this better be my last post! Here I go getting carried away again.
Now I feel bad.Maybe take a sabattical. You're a good writer, which is why you get frustrated when you get the "itch" to give a response that you feel is a worthy one. And lots of times, one line is just not enough to get ones point across. Some evenings I get nothing done except make my fingers sore and eye tired, and I wonder if I helped, contributed, or provoked good thought or just ranted, picked fights and caused general mayhem. Sometimes its definately more of the latter...
I would take a break, lurk around, and decide which posts are REALLY important for you to be spending that kind of time on. Maybe just limit yourself to a few one liners here and there for a bit. Clark Johnsen is the king of one liners around here. I tease good old CJ about this but he does often say his piece in one single line. He can make a point right there in the subject line. Sometimes his line falls short - but he doesn't seem to care! I don't hate Clark but I think he hates me. That's okay. I'm here to learn and have fun. Being liked is a bonus but not really mandatory. I get to be ME here - even if being me means being a bit of an ass. Fortunately me being as ass is mostly within the tolerance levels of our good moderators. I mean, if I want to act professional, like-able, respectable, and only say things I can back up with IEEE approved fact then hell - I'll just go into work! The Asylum is like my alcohol free online watering hole!
I've been really wrapped up in lots of threads on general too the last few days. Some really interesting and hot topics. It seems to have started when we moved past the "controversial tweak" arguments and are back onto some really neat subjects.
Anyways...
My joke was based on an actual belief (movement even) that doctors are overprescribing antidepressants and not using adequate screening for depression. One website actually encourages people who get told they have a chemical imbalance to say just that: "SHOW ME THE TEST RESULTS!" It's more of a commentary on what we know about brain chemistry - there IS no bloodwork you can do (specific to brain chemistry) that can determine if someone has this "chemical imbalance" associated with clinical depression. But we do know that people who exhibit SYMPTOMS of depression can have these symptoms alleviated when they take "the right" antidepressant.
And its common knowlege that getting the "right" anti-d is a very subjective process! Some folks need to do trial and error to find the right drug and dosage. Others seem to get results on the first drug they try (the lucky ones). Others still seem to have problems greater in scope than anti-D's can help with, and get no results from ANYTHING they try (they might have a mood disorder, sleeping disorder, weight problem, anger management problem, addiction issues, social issues, parenting issues or a combination of these problems - their symptoms of depression indicate depression, but their depression is just a side-effect (or other symptom) of greater problem(s) that need attention.
The joke was meant to poke fun at objectivists using this as a premise. The crux (and humor) is that a objectivist can't accept a subjective analysis even from a doctor with years of training and years of seeing other patients with the exact same ailment.
I could make a similar joke: A subjectivist goes to the doctor and the doctor tells him he tested positive for hepatitis. He says the test results must be wrong because he feels perfectly fine.
The argument between subjectivists and objectivists is silly in one regard. There are not really too many people stuck in the extremist camp of either side. Most subjectivists think their ears are the final "instrument" they need to use, but acknowledge there are many good uses for measurements to get one in the ballpart. Most objectivists agree that they rely heavily on measurements at first, but always try and make a correlation between measured data and what they hear, and what they hear is based on human perception and is SUBJECTIVE. Few subjectivists would design an amplifier or loudspeaker with NO test intruments, and few objectivists would put a product on the market that satisfied specs and "tested well" but was never auditioned!
I think people argue from an extremist perspective that is really not representative of their TRUE position on the "objectivist - subjectivist scale".
I'm sorry my attempt at humor resulted in you getting flustered. Please don't let old Presto drive you over the edge...I would not be happy about that at all.
You think you're bad. Look how much I wrote here! I like writing. lol I wish I was good at it! :P
Don't worry, your joke and posts had nothing to do with my decision. I have a very thick skin when it comes to things like this. I just think I've been spending too much time posting, far beyond what my comments are worth.
Besides.That's what WE'RE here for! :o)
Don't leave.
Even if you stay just to avoid giving ONE S.O.B. the satisfaction...
...well then it's well worth it! :o)
I've thought of not coming back too. But I don't think I could handle making that many people happy at the same time! :D
keep posting mate! You can always try to limit yourself to one post a week if you find it's taking up too much of your time. :-))We need more posts from people like you in place of the tiresome drivel which pops up all too often.
Regards,
That was nice of you to say. I have learned a great deal from other posts here. For example, who would have thought that attaching fishing weights to my tone arm could really improve its performance? I read it on the VA, tried it, and it works! (Actually it does make good sense from a physics standpoint, unlike some other tweaks pushed here, but I never would have though of it.) So when I really get the urge I probably won't be able to resist, and hopefully what I post will be of value to someone as so many posts have been to me.Joe
"There is no question that laboratory measuring devices are far more sensitive and accurate than our hearing..."Actually just the oposite is true... labratory devices don't even come close to measuring what the human ear can hear, and thus it's not a question of not knowing what to measure, it's a case of not having sensitive enough equipment to measure what we hear with our ears.
Your ear is really a poor transducer, though it has an incredible analyzer hooked up to it. Hell, even my dog can hear far better than any human I know. A tiny example of what an acoustic lab can do without effort, yet you couldn't possibly do: I was in a "live room," a room with highly reflective walls. In other words, it was an extremely bright room. The room was about 25 feet long, 20 feet wide, and 20 feet high. A short burst of sound is introduced into the room, and it echoes around for a long time. Then a piece of some material, say acouctical tile or a seat cushion about 10 x 10 inches in placed on one wall. The sound is repeated, and from measurements of the decay, it is possible to accurately measure the absorption coefficient of sound by the material as a function of frequency to very high accuracy. Yet it is far beyond the ability of human hearing to even be able to detect whether that piece of material is there or not in the test.You can't hear sound at 10 Hz or 50 Khz, but lab equipment can. You cannot detect which signal is louder if they differ by 0.01 dB, but lab equipment easily can, You could not detect if a notch 5 Hz wide and 0.1 dB deep centered at 1000 Hz was cut out of a speaker's response, but that would be simple to measure in a lab. The list goes on and on.
The sensitivity of lab measuring equipment is so far beyond what your ears can hear that you might not even believe it if if you saw it demonstrated.
and understanding how it correlates to how / what we hear, AND also to other simultaneous auditory stimuli is the real trick. I really don't know of anyone that listens to individual test tones, standardized test signals or noise bursts on a regular basis. Hence, drawing conclusions from such test methodology can be troublesome and deceiving at best.Music is very complex in nature, presenting non-symmetrical signals of various amplitudes and frequencies simultaneously. There's so much going on at one time, taking accurate measurements and being able to extrapolate usable data corresponding to how the human ear / brain processes that info is "less than optimum" at this time.
While we have some phenomenally advanced test equipment available to us, interpreting the test results and being able to interpret / apply what we learn from such is still not perfected. Besides all of that, we still have to factor in differences in individual hearing capabilities, varying levels of listening skill and personal auditory bias.
Science is a great and marvelous thing, but only when applied in a meaningful manner. Otherwise, "facts" aren't really universal facts, they are responses and results achieved under specific test conditions. Whether or not those specific test conditions apply to reality may be something all together different. Sean
>
Sean:Yes indeed. We're using science to render art.
At some point, we must put away the measuring equipment, "render the art", and use a completely different set of 'test criterion', which is human perception.
Not to say that measurements are invalidated (although in some extreme cases we see this very thing), but it's when we start to attempt to lay down some sort of corolary between what a good measurement is and what a good sound is - that's where there is much disagreement.
I believe you can't really argue with ruler flat amplitude response. And some maintain that you need to go one step further and have flat frequency response which is technically a representation of amplitude AND phase response. (They use the term frequency response instead of amplitude response... but it's really not 100% accurate.)
Where you DO get into interesting subject area is when you start talking about spacial cues, and the types of delays and other sonic artifacts that our ear-brain hearing system is very good at processing. I've never heard any say that they measured the system, and can quantify that the soundstage is "correct". Have you?
I think (and this is just my humble opinion) that we need to use the measurement gear to measure what it measures well, and the ears to "measure" what the ears measure well. In my example, I was showing how the ear really sucks as a tool for measuring frequency response. F/R was not really a useful function for primal man. Locating the source of sound is VERY useful - life and death really when you're a primate walking among dangerous creatures of all shapes and sizes.The quest for this corollary between what we can measure and what we can hear is the source of much debate. Many say our ears are much more sensitive transducers than measuring equipment we have. This I doubt. What I think the problem is? We're not measuring the right things if we want to try and and actually quantify what constitues a "correct" soundstage (for example).
So I do find it funny that I am considered to be a staunch objectivist simply because I try and make a correlation between measurements and what I hear. (Heck most times I am busy just trying to INTERPRET measurements themselves and ensure that they are even useful or the result of an accepted (or desired) test method).
In the end, since we're rendering art for the purpose of enjoying art, at some point you have to include LISTENING, PERCEIVING and JUDGING the art (as rendered) and describe it with the terms that are valid for our hearing system.
+0.24 db at 4132 Hz, Q = 3.2 ??? No.
Sweeter, nicer, warmer, smoother, palpable, engaging, fast, slow, bloated, thin, deep, wide, 2D, 3D, black, bright, sharp, soft...
These are the QUALITIES we can "Measure" (perceive) with our ears!
My formula for totaly awesome sound?
Good measured quantities + good perceived qualities = GOOD SOUND
The only time I get hot around the collar is when folks confuse quantity with quality and start trying to QUANTIFY what something is doing or how it works simply by listening to it. You can't explain nuclear fission by looking at the sun. And you can't explain *all* acoustical phenomenon by simply listening to music.
Anyways, sorry for giving you a hard time the other day. I was being devil's advocate and a RPITA (royal pain in...) I have a lot to learn about transmission line theory.
Back to the books...
No problem. We are probably much closer to being on the same page than it might appear from this thread. Best wishes to you and good listening. Sean
>
nt
Frequency response.Human ear? 40-19khz (teen) 40-16khz (middle aged adult).
(Yet we have audiophiles getting headaches from RADIO FREQUENCY INTERFERENCE!!!)
Test instruments? DC to light.
Sorry. Test equipment rules there.
Another nice thing about test instruments is that they don't rely on PERCEPTION.
Oh, by the way, the "measureability versus audibility" debate still goes on. You can't just say "ears won".
We'll you can. But you would need to refer to a universally accepted CONTEST that was held. There is a lot of talk on the subject but very few references to work done by auditory experts and authorities in the field of human hearing.
I think it is still largely debatable whether or not audiophiles actually DO (or CAN) hear differences that are (or would HAVE to be) below our current measuring capabilitites. One thing is for certain, if you PRETEND that you change a cable, you REALLY start getting reports that something changed. Now, how can we, in the face of this AMAZING evidence of the powers (and failings) of human PERCEPTION, even COMPARE our auditory systems to a calibrated instrument?
Theory not bought.
If this were true, manufacturers would HAVE no instruments. Just a bunch of middle aged guys locked in a closet and brought out whenever "critical listening" tests.
Anomalies in frequency response can be measured down to 0.1 db with cheap equipment.
Humans can only PERCEIVE changes of 3db or MAYBE 1db for an exceptionally trained ear.
It was just a lame audiophile joke, so there was no need to analyze it!Any audiophiles who believe measurements are more important than listening are so far at the audio fringe that there needs to be a new title: Objectivists focus on how to listen to audio equipment in a way that reduces possible biases.
Measurements, even of speakers, are only a rough guide to individual preferences. The room has a huge effect and all rooms differ,
Measurements of electronics reveal little (except amplifier clipping, which can only sound bad, if audible)
The subjective-objective debate is over whether listening to components playing at different volumes, and/or knowing the brand/model in use, could bias an audition.
For speakers and cartridges, both subjectivists and objectivists agree that differences are easy enough to hear, so small A-B volume differences, and knowing the brand, are not very important.
For electronics, and especially wires, there is a huge disagreement.
Both subjective and objective audiophiles are in 100% agreement on one thing: The other group consists of people who are easily fooled, or are just plain fools (it's always nice to have complete agreement on at least one subject).
.
.
.
nt
PLEASE!
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
Actually, resistance is a function of resistivity, cross sectional area and length of the conductor...Where is my OHM METER!? Where is my oscilloscope?!? I am hearing things... but I can SEE NO GRAPHICAL DATA!
This is illogical.
I want to listen to my equipment. I need some new music.
I mean... I want to listen to my music. I need some new EQUIPMENT!
Of COURSE that's what I meant...
hee hee ha ha.
.
No Guru, No Method, No Teacher
... you couldn't remember.
.
.
.
.
Richard BassNut Greene
Subjective Audiophile 2007
But I think you need to take a Rivitrol man!It was just a joke. You know... objectivist asking for TEST RESULTS?? ha ha ha...
What's not a joke is that MILLIONS of North Americans were prescribed anti-D's with NO MORE INFORMATION than our objectivist gave our good doctor in my joke.
Don't believe me? Ask people who are on them, and how much "information was exchanged". Ask them also, how much "testing and critical diagnosing" was done.
It's "Yep - that's depression all right! Here's your PROZAC!" in more than half the cases.
Believing otherwise is a very optimistic view of a GP's ability to provide psychiatric care, and prescribe psychiatric medicine safely.
Ironically, if you see a shrink, you'll get medicated with MORE dope even faster. Just show up with bags under your eyes and a frown and they'll write you up.
Oh. I am a self-proclaimed objectivist. That's the REAL funny part! :o)
But your points are well taken.
Finding a correlation between certain measurements and perceived sonics is going to be a lifetime journey for many!
Some may say it's a road best not travelled.
I don't think using your ears to pick gear that is ultimately supposed to be pleasing to your ear is dumb.
I just think this is dumb:
"What I hear means this _______ works as advertised, and all of the pseudo-scientific explanations offered by the marketing team must be REAL and VALID".
Let's not forget that "What I hear" is a perception and not a definitive or quantitative thing. It's a QUALITATIVE thing.
It is, in a word, subjective.
Seriously try the Rivitrol though.
that measurements can be of some help. They don't have to be totally rejected. In the end, nearly all cases of people who have neurotransmitter problems are not diagnosed with "objective" tests, but with a subjective evaluation after ruling out other easy-to- evalute-conditions. In like manner, I use measurements to weed out equipment that doesn't seem likely to be something I would want- I have had enough experience with comparing measurements to listening to know how to evaluate measurements- but in the end, only by extended careful listening can I make a choice.Joe
My "intensity dial" was cranked WAY up. Who did that? My oh my...No really. We're saying the same thing.
Quantitative measurements + Qualitative perceptions = optimal sound
Both are just guides really.
You know my BESTEST test for systems? It's when I (for some reason) stop wondering about all the technical attributes long enough to get drawn into the soul of the music. This is when I can get spine shivers and goose bumps again. Tonality. Transparency. Immediacy. Involvement. Very qualitative and perceptual "measurements" indeed.
I think if we could measure spins shiver intensity and goose bump size... we'd be getting somewhere!
Cheers,
Presto
.......but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
and says, "oops!, never mind me." Then he left.
says the Doctor: "We better rush you to the Sci Headquarters right away, this could be critical"....
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: